The Lull before the Storm
These are questions that all Americans need to ask before domestic and global events reach a breaking point: Will almost 75 million Trump partisans meekly bow their heads and submit to the new “normal” dictated by the “woke” elite (Deep State) in Washington, D. C.? Will the struggling middle and working classes let their schools become hotbeds of propaganda by teaching that gender differences are as much a state of mind as a biological reality? Will parents willingly accept “pre-trans” boys using girls’ restrooms and shower stalls by virtue of their gender identification? Are whites “systemically” racist no matter their age or national origins? This twisted argument defies rational definition yet proponents of these beliefs impose them on the most vulnerable elements in society: our school-age children.
The answers to these questions will determine the fate of our nation over the next decade or so. Our future depends on which path our political leaders in Congress choose to follow in their quest for a carbon-free, race neutral, and gender malleable society or — from an opposing point of view — a world that blends fossil fuels and electrical propulsion on an equal footing, and praises a life that derives from science and natural law.
Will technology meld with ideology to shape the lifestyle of generations to come? What values and traditions are worthy of being retained or rejected? Massive immigration and a zealous progressive wing of the Democratic Party will impose an existence that many conservatives would oppose. In a word, can America be redefined without a profound reorientation of its current beliefs and “way of life?” If that event occurs, will it be incremental or effected in a revolutionary, spasmodic uprising of those whose lives have been forcibly altered, against their will? And lastly, what foreign power will dominate world affairs in the late twenty-first century?
Many progressive changes are being put into effect by presidential directive, corporate promotional campaigns, and complicit media outlets. Very little discussion in the public domain has preceded these radical measures that aim to redefine what America is or should be. For example, “Critical Race Theory” that condemns “white” authority is being widely taught in public schools to immature and gullible minds. The mainstream media fail to discuss or mention these issues on their nightly news programs. Major newspapers as well give credence to these divisive ideas that have very little foundation in reality.
Middle America feels helpless when faced with this onslaught of dysfunctional information. Very few Congressional representatives or senators are willing to challenge the Washington elite who cater to the progressive movement that seeks to fashion a “new” America, detached from its origins and centrist values. Even the military has bought into the need to create a new “sensitivity” concerning race relations (namely Black versus White) which are being redefined with “victimhood” and minor complaints, such as criticizing hair styles, lying at the core of this re-examination. Social equity is taking precedence over military readiness in our Armed Forces.
Who will be the spokesperson for the forgotten millions who live in the small towns and rural areas of our country? The popularity of Donald Trump lay in his ability to capture their allegiance with promises that he intended to keep. The current candidates for president in the Republican Party do not have his visceral connection with the disenfranchised masses who distrust the electoral system and many of their elected representatives.
Should Trump Return to Power?
Ever since Donald Trump announced his candidacy for the presidential election of 2024, the media and law enforcement agencies have treated his venture with the utmost suspicion and hostility. His tax returns have been scrutinized by anonymous financial “experts” in an effort to prove that serious fiscal crimes were committed by his business dealings, in spite of multiple audits that found no illegal activity worthy of note.
The FBI, at the request of the Attorney General, Merrick Garland, raided his estate at Mar-a-Lago on the presumption that confidential documents he had taken from the White House might contain atomic secrets that could then be sold to hostile, foreign powers! However, no devastating atomic secrets were discovered by the agency. The search warrant was so broad that it permitted agents to search his wife’s undergarments! Trump, as a declared candidate for president, was targeted for political reasons, not because he posed a threat to national security.
On the other hand, when confidential documents were discovered in a car garage at Biden’s Delaware home and elsewhere, the media pulled out all stops to justify their presence, even though as vice-president, Biden did not have the authority to remove them from his office. These documents were not secured under lock and key and were easily available to his drug addict son who could have illegally used them in his (Hunter’s) dealings with foreign governments (notably Ukraine). To date, there has been no accusation of inappropriate behavior on Biden’s part by the Justice Department, supposedly independent of the White House. The rift between law-abiding citizens and the president’s family in judicial matters is a source of contention for the average observer.
It will be, of course, very difficult for Trump to regain the trust and support of his Republican base. The Party itself would prefer someone with a less “tainted” past whose two impeachments, whether justified or not, would be a serious impediment to his re-election. His millions of loyal supporters would have doubts about his ability to re-energize the base as he did during the recent presidential election of 2020.
Nonetheless, if Trump manages to be nominated again as the presidential candidate for the Republican Party, he would most likely have to face either Biden (whom the Democratic Party dislikes) or some unexpected contender…possibly Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama, purely for popular appeal and not for her political wisdom. In both cases, as wives of former presidents, their attraction would be based on the assumption they would be surrogates for their spouses. In a sense, they would be Clinton II and Obama II.
If any candidate is chosen for the Republican Party…most likely Ron DeSantis, governor of Florida…his electability on a national scale would be dubious, given his support for Trump’s policies as governor. His lack of charisma and “name recognition” would be a handicap in securing the vote of independents and dissatisfied or alienated Democrats.
If Biden or Clinton were to be elected president, the full weight of woke wrath would fall on the American public. Long-standing grudges would be settled with political enemies and even more stringent progressive initiatives would be invoked to achieve a carbon-free society in the near future. Critical Race Theory and other radical policies would be aggressively promoted throughout the country’s educational system. Middle class Americans would have little say-so in their implementation.
The Breaking Point and Beyond
If, for any reason, the economy should falter in 2024 and we are severely affected by an economic downturn, the mood of America will rapidly change. If either Biden or Clinton (or possibly Michelle Obama) are in power, they will become the focus of domestic unrest.
Although the media will continue to protect the Democratic president elect, many factions of the country will begin to express their displeasure. Conservative news outlets (Fox News, The New York Post, Wall Street Journal, et al.) will emphasize the negative aspects of most political decisions.
Barring a dramatic reversal of fortune, the war in Ukraine will weaken, not strengthen the NATO alliance. As more European countries are drawn into combat, their constituents will protest against a military involvement in what they perceive to be a futile undertaking. Europe will find itself teetering on the brink of a third World War, all for the sake of a non-NATO Slavic country with close, historical ties to its Russian foe.
In essence, we are dealing with a Russo-phone civil war where many Russian-speaking citizens in Ukraine are sympathetic to Russia’s territorial claims, something than Putin has long underscored.
Biden’s war lords have convinced him that total victory is the only option: Putin must be overthrown, Crimea retaken and returned to Ukrainian control. A truce or peace treaty can be arranged, so they say, with Putin’s successor who will certainly be more pliable to Western demands. If the opposite is true — Putin’s replacement turns out to be hard-lined and intransigent — then we will replicate the quagmire of Afghanistan, this time with a much more powerful and destructive opponent. The haunting specter of a nuclear conflict will be an immediate threat to NATO’s security and to the United States as well. An extension of this military encounter will place an enormous strain on the financial reserves of each country involved and possibly plunge the Western world into an economic crisis of major proportions.
In all likelihood, the American southern border will continue to be porous. Millions of unvetted and illegal aliens will continue to pour into border states; only a small number will be arrested and deported by immigration officials. In keeping with the current Biden policies, “asylum seekers” will be released on their own recognizance and given a future date for adjudication of their status. The financial strain on states like Texas and Arizona will become almost untenable as migrants by the hundreds of thousands flow across their land and gravitate to the heavily populated cities for refuge. There is no plan at present to handle these vagabond intruders.
The Biden administration will surely attempt to grant a modified form of amnesty to those illegal aliens that have lived in America for an extended period of time. Since their children have become by law American citizens, compassion dictates that families should not be separated by “arbitrary rules and regulations” concerning immigration. However, the large number of applicants for legal immigration status will be ignored or downplayed in order to massively increase the number of potential Democratic voters in our midst. This is a very cruel and ill-conceived chess game that the Biden administration is playing. Many aspirants will die or suffer along the journey to America with little assurance that their dreams will be fulfilled upon arrival.
How many illegal aliens can America absorb in an orderly manner? With little if any effective border control, a continuous stream of Third World economic migrants will eventually overwhelm social and community services throughout the nation. Many “asylum seekers” are sent in the middle of the night to far away destinations in buses and planes without the knowledge of local authorities where they disembark.
Our national debt is currently over thirty-one trillion dollars, which is by all standards a critical level of indebtedness. Money is being printed willy-nilly to cover existing commitments and a mammoth debt service. Without a dramatic increase in taxation to offset these expenses, the war in Ukraine will drain billions of dollars from our Treasury to fuel a surrogate war against Putin’s regime, contrary to the wishes of most Americans. Biden has turned down all efforts to negotiate a truce between the Ukrainians and Russians, preferring to continue his irrational objective to overthrow Putin’s leadership as a Russian strongman. He is little more than a puppet of the military-industrial complex and the neo-con zealots in both parties.
In addition to domestic crises, Biden’s administration has to deal with China’s quest for domination in the Far East as well as its claim on Taiwan’s territorial legitimacy. Undoubtedly, this will be the next crisis that Biden will face if China decides to take military action against its neighbor.
In our hemisphere, the Chinese steal our military and industrial secrets, place spies in academic institutions (both students and faculty) and are purchasing large tracts of farmland near military facilities, for the so-called purpose of producing crops to feed their people.
If China perceives that Biden will not aggressively intervene in a conflict with Taiwan, it will interpret this reluctance as an act of neutrality or at worse cowardice. As it did in the take-over of Hong Kong, the CCP will reintegrate Taiwan into the Chinese mainland in accordance with Xi-Jinping’s long-term strategy for the region. It would be virtually impossible for Biden to engage in a sea or land war in the Far East while conducting a surrogate war in Ukraine at the same time.
China’s naval fleet and capabilities supersede America’s power on the high seas. Any attack by Chinese forces on Taiwan would inevitably involve South Korea and Japan who would defend their national autonomy at all costs. Foreseeably, North Korea would side with the Chinese in this conflict. The possibility of another drawn-out war in the Far East would be met, in America, with massive public resistance. If we intervene militarily, our financial resources would be strained to the limit. Given Biden’s family connections with China’s economic leaders, he would be very reluctant to get involved in internal political disputes in the Far East.
In addition to its global military aspirations, China has long sought a means of replacing the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency. In its place, the Chinese digital yuan serves as a form of international currency. Along these lines, Russia and Iran have devised a crypto currency to be used in foreign trade, to bypass the US dollar. If these efforts are successful, the United States would be required to pay for goods and services, in certain European and Asian regions, in the new alternative currency. The financial impact on our economic stability would be catastrophic if more countries demanded similar payment.
Although not as predictable, China could at any moment demand repayment of its investments in US Treasury bonds (more than one trillion dollars). If this occurs, the United States would not have the reserves necessary to meet this demand. The only protection America has against a “run” on its assets by bond holders, is the belief that the American economy will recover its dominance no matter what crisis it encounters. If this assurance is challenged or proven not to be correct, the results would force America’s economy into a default on its outstanding debt. This has happened to several countries in the not too distant past…Argentina serves as one glaring example. Even Mexico had to be propped up by Western Central banks a few decades ago (1982) when it defaulted on its foreign debt. The idea that we are Americans and consequently defaulting on loans could never happen to our globally powerful economy is perhaps naïve if not dangerous.
We Can Bend but We Will Not Break
This classic football defense statement may be relevant as well in domestic and foreign affairs: the team bends but it doesn’t break, meaning that it gives up yards between the goal lines but doesn’t allow the opposing team to score.
America has traditionally been a more reactive than proactive country in planning for the future. We reluctantly committed our expeditionary forces to the Allies cause during the last year and a half of the First World War. Prior to that time, the majority of Americans felt that they should not get involved in a distant conflict among perpetually hostile European powers. The same attitude was wide-spread before the outbreak of the Second World War. Charles Lindbergh himself championed an anti-war, America First stance and argued against our entry into the coming war. As a result, he was courted by Hitler and far-right movements in America. Joseph P. Kennedy, the father of President John Kennedy, served as ambassador to England. He publicly opposed any involvement in the war, convinced that Hitler would invade and conquer England with minimal effort. He also held strong anti-Semitic views.
The surprise attack on Pearl Harbor forced us, with Roosevelt’s blessing, to declare war on the Axis powers. In spite of Dwight Eisenhower’s warning against engaging in land wars in Asia, we were drawn into the Vietnam debacle that ended very poorly for all concerned. The recent incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrated the futility of nation-building wars that sought to radically alter the social and political culture of conquered nations.
Nonetheless, the military-industrial complex (term coined by Eisenhower) has enabled the Biden administration to pursue a distant war between Slavic peoples in which Americans have little to gain. Without a radical change of Russian policy, this quasi civil war will run its course over the years to come. As always, we will be enmeshed in a conflict that does not have a viable exit strategy.
Once again, our foreign policy in this area predicts a short-term conclusion to what will be most likely an extended war effort. In the rubble of a country that will be functionally destroyed, American contractors will reap the benefits of multiple reconstruction contracts. ”Destroy and rebuild” have become loathsome mantras for our military engagements over the past few decades.
We are now at a point of bending under the weight of serial crises, none of which have an immediate solution. Whether we will break depends on many factors. For example, can the Chinese be contained in their military imperialism in Asia? What is our strategy in case Taiwan is attacked? Millions of illegal aliens will place an inordinate burden on our social services and equilibrium. What will the solution eventually be? Will NATO survive the military and economic stress that the war in Ukraine has placed on their resources?
Domestically there are many other concerns that demand the President’s full attention. It is painfully obvious that Biden himself has little to do with decision-making in his administration. He is the spokesperson for an assemblage of Obama loyalists who craft opinions and instruct the President in what to say and how to present these ideas to the American public (to wit: his “cheat sheets” that detail every phase of his public encounters.)
If We Break, What Then?
Most Americans reject the inevitability of having a dysfunctional society. We have long been a sociable, get-along-with-your-neighbor people at heart. Our pioneer past encourages us to trust strangers and help those in need. After all, as the progressives delight in saying,” we are a country of immigrants.” This of course refers only to those who arrived initially from Europe and not to the native Americans whose civilizations date back some ten thousand years or so.
As a matter of national interest, immigration features very high on the list of priorities. Unless we are able to manage the influx of illegal migrants, we will find ourselves dealing with social and economic problems beyond our control. Secondarily, the smuggling of drugs from the Chinese/Mexican cartels is undermining our sense of social cohesion in rural areas and major cities; hundreds of thousands of young people are overdosing on legal and illicit drugs that are taking them out of the work force and turning them into subsidy “parasites” at an age when they should be driven by ambition and the desire to succeed. Thirdly, street crime, drug use, and homelessness are destroying the inner cities of major urban centers…e.g., San Francisco, New York, Chicago, and many others).
These are only a few of the social problems we are currently facing; no matter how hard we try, nothing seems to be effective in treating these scourges. The sale of cannabis (marijuana) has now been made legal in several states; its popularity continues to grow and it will be soon be no more than a recreational opiate for adolescents and young adults. Life’s troubles and painful struggles will be reduced to a dulled sensibility. Decisions will be made through the artificial filter of impaired reasoning and heightened sensations.
There are unconfirmed rumors that cocaine will also be declared recreational in a social context and soon made available to the general public in selected states. The old saying that informed the lifestyle of hippies who protested against the Vietnam Conflict (1960s, 1970s) “turn on and drop out” will soon be relevant to our decadent youth. The cohesion of our social fabric will be placed in danger if aggressive measures are not taken.
In the worse-case scenario, such as: uncontrolled immigration, the widening of drug use in both a legal and illegal context, our economic worries created by galloping inflation, the proliferation of foreign wars that will require a revival of the military draft, the restructuring of America to meet the “green” standards of the electronic age, and the bitter hatreds that exist between opposing political parties that have differing views of America’s future…all of these issues could very easily bring us, as a nation, to the brink of dissolution or an internal civil war that will be more political than a military confrontation. At this stage, politicians and corporate leaders will seek some degree of pacification in the ranks. Very strong and committed leaders will be necessary to keep us from “falling into the abyss” of a representative government in disarray.
It has long been said that America is not a place but an “idea” of national unity imposed on citizens from diverse origins. However, we have given up the traditional concept of “merging together under one flag and ideology” and have now submitted to the “salad bowl” reality of tribal groups that manage to tolerate one another rather than accept a common goal in spite of their multiple differences.
How will we react when foreign powers, drunk with a sense of superiority, attempt to challenge our leadership role in global affairs? Without the unity of all parts, America will try to cobble together a nation of tribes to defend its borders in times of severe crisis.
If war should break out between the United States and our current opponents — the Russia-China Axis if not the BRICS generally — it would be almost impossible to prevent the use of nuclear weapons. If so, our civilizations would cease to exist. Even worse, nuclear fallout and toxic winds would endanger all organic life on the planet.
As Americans, we must be proactive and not reactive if we wish to survive in the twenty-first century. Which path will be taken? The choice we make will determine the country we bequeath to our grandchildren.